Transportation Advisory Commission Agenda 11-29-2012AGENDA
MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, November 29, 2012
7:30 a.m.
Academy Room
Monticello Community Center
Call to Order.
2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
3. Update on Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan (MNSHIP) revisions.
4. Update on Fallon Avenue Overpass.
Update on Second River Crossing.
6. Update on West 7th Street Extension (Minnesota to Elm) Feasibility Report status.
7. Consideration of revising meeting dates.
S. Added items.
9. Schedule next meeting (tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 24th @ 7:30 AM).
10. Adjournment
Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12
3. Update on Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan ( MNSHIP) revisions.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is currently updating its 20 -year State
Highway Investment Plan (MnSHIP) for years 2013 - 2032. Mn/DOT will use this plan as a
guide for funding capital improvements on the 12,000 mile State Highway System (not local or
county roads) over this time period. In summary, Mn/DOT is exploring 3 approaches for
funding improvements on the State Highway System as follows:
Approach A would direct almost all funding to preserving existing infrastructure.
• Approach B would provide a small percentage of funding for system expansion and
community improvements, but the vast majority would still be designated for preserving
existing infrastructure.
Approach C would allow for the greatest level of system expansion and community
improvements, although even this approach only allows for minimal system expansion
and community improvements.
From a local and regional perspective, if Approach A is selected the negative impacts would be
significant since the segment of Interstate 94 from Maple Grove to St. Cloud includes only
1.6% of Minnesota's Inter Regional Corridor (IRC) mileage, yet under Mn/DOT's current plan
this segment of 1 -94 is projected to carry 40% of the congestion on the IRC. As such, IRC
mobility needs to receive a higher priority to ensure long term economic viability for
businesses in our City, the County, and the State. This would include construction of a third
lane in each direction on 1 -94 along this corridor. In addition, the crash and severity rates on I-
94 in our region are already well above the state average and are only likely to worsen without
corridor expansion improvements.
This corridor of I -94 also serves many beyond our region, functioning as a national artery for
the trucking industry in the U.S. with thousands of trucking companies utilizing this corridor.
Our hospitality industry also depends on the I -94 corridor as it is the premier gateway for
thousands of Minnesotans travelling up north for vacation and recreation opportunities.
Mn/DOT is currently gathering public comment for their MnSHIP revisions. Additional
infonnation on MnSHIP can be found on Mn/DOT's website located at
http:/ /www dot state mn us /plannin statehighwayinvestmentplan /index.html.
B. SUPPORTING DATA:
MnSHIP Overview and Investment Approaches literature from Mn/DOT website (12 pgs)
(CPO
CoiEaboor Vis
for
for Transpsportation
20 -Year
State Highway
Investment Plan
vvuai z) rfnnJnlr anu wnaT Uoes It attecrt
The 20 -Year Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan 2013-
2032 (MnSHIP) will support the guiding principles from the
Minnesota GO vision and link the policies and strategies
in the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan (www.
minnesotagoplan.org) to improvements on the state highway
system. The state highway system is a network of roads that
includes interstates, U.S. highways, and state highways, and
serves automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, pedestrians, bicyclists,
and transit. MnDOT maintains the state's 12,000 -mile highway
system. MnSHIP will guide capital improvements on Minnesota's
highways over the next twenty years; it will not affect local or
county roads.
The 20 -year plan is divided into three periods:
• 2013 -2016 - The State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) (years 1 -4): The STIP identifies projects on
the state highway system that MnDOT intends to carry out in
the next four years. The investment direction established in
MnSHIP will primarily affect projects after the STIP.
• 2017 -2022 (years 5 -10): A general plan of improvements and
several specific projects will be identified in MnSHIP, though
project timing and scope may change.
• 2023 -2032 (years 11 -20): Specific projects will not be
identified; rather, MnSHIP will set broad investment priorities
and develop associated funding allocations.
MnSHIP will establish a fiscally constrained investment direction
for highway projects from years 2017 through 2032.
How does MnSHIP differ from the last plan update?
MnSHIP is updated every four years, as required by the
Minnesota State Legislature. The last plan was completed in
2009. . Since the last plan update, MnDOT has adopted a risk
management approach to decision - making. The current MnSHIP
update will incorporate risk management in the following ways:
• MnDOT will assess risks across multiple performance levels for
each investment category (pages 3 -4); and
• MnDOT will solicit feedback on different combinations of
strategies that manage risks to the highway system (pages 3 -4).
What other factors will shape MnSHIP?
MnSHIP must consider a variety of factors that affect the state
highway system. System needs exceed projected revenue
that will be available over the next twenty years (page 2). In
addition, MnSHIP will respond to recent federal legislation
(MAP -21) that requires MnDOT to prioritize
Oltimprovements on major routes included
in the National Highway System.
ZaR State and federal requirements, the
.. _; Governor, technical experts, and
�.. "
public opinion will all guide the
development of MnSHIP
MnSHIP will address regional mobility, among other
highway system needs, through its investment
liC WWI wuionir investment wiii oe alocated into ten categories that make up five key groups of highway projects:
Asset Managemem
• Pavement Condition
• Bridge Condition
• Roadside Infrastructure
Condition
• Traveler Safety
• Twin Cities Mobility
• Interregional Corridor
Mobility
• Bicycle Infrastructure
• Accessible Pedestrian
Infrastructure
• Regional + Community
Improvement Priorities
• Project Support
A fixed percentage that is
allocated towards delivering
projects.
What sources of revenue fund the state highway system?
Minnesota's state highway system is funded through both state
and federal sources. The state also uses bonding authority to
finance investments in state highways. A bond is a written
promise to repay borrowed money at a fixed rate over a period of
time.
Where are we headed?
MnDOT anticipates limited growth in revenue for several reasons.
First, the historic growth in revenue generated through state and
federal fuel taxes is slowing due to changes in travel patterns and
more fuel- efficient vehicles. In addition, MnDOT will approach
its set limit on bonding capacity during the next decade. Around
2020, MnDOT expects to repay more than $200 million per year, or
19% of its projected revenues, towards debt service from bonds.
Stair. Pro"rems
Over the next twenty years, future revenue is forecast to be
approximately $18 billion. The 2013 -2016 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) includes approximately $4 billion in
capital projects. This leaves approximately $14 billion in projected
revenue to invest between 2017 and 2032, the years MnSHIP
covers.
Will MnDOT be able to address the system's needs?
The state highway system's needs have increased since the 2009
MnSHIP update and will continue to grow. Preliminary estimates
suggest that the investment needed just to preserve physical
highway assets in good repair— without addressing safety, mobility
or local issues —would require all projected revenue over the 20-
year period. MnDOT's obligation to balance revenue constraints,
legislative requirements, increasing needs, and reduced buying
Federal Aid
Higir wcay Pair #raid
tl MtatwYehicla Yebicle Feder
es Sates Tax J Registration Tax
9% 21 %
lit
ks State Trunk Highway Fund
power means that MnSHIP must establish the
state's priorities for capital investments on state
highways.
State and federal revenue sources contribute to
Minnesota's trunk highway system fund. Percentages
reflect an approximated breakdown of the trunk highway
fund for State Fiscal Year 2010.
How will buying power affect transportation funding?
Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices that
may lead to a loss in buying power. The future value of
current transportation funds will be greatly reduced due
to increases in the cost of fuel, materials (such as asphalt,
steel, and concrete), labor, and equipment. MnDOT will
likely have only half of its current purchasing power in
20 years, which poses serious challenges to the state
transportation network.
The graphic to the right depicts how expected revenue
would be impacted given a 5% inflation rate (the historic
capital construction inflation rate over the last decade). The
general decline in revenue reflects a loss in buying power
over the next twenty years.
$1,200
N
0
$1.000
0
$800
$600
d
V7
° $400
$200
W
.a
$0
irunrc nlgnway ruffub
State Fiscal Year
■ Projected Revenue Adjusted for 5% Inflation ■ Projected Revenue in Year of Construction
The buying power of projected revenue is expected to decrease over the next twenty years.
What is performance -based planning? the next two decades.
In performance -based planning, quantitative measures are used
to determine how well a given plan will contribute to stated
goals. MnDOT uses performance trend data and forecasts to
guide investments and operational decisions. For the latest
Annual Minnesota Transportation Performance Report, visit
http: / /www. dot. state.mn.us /measures /index.html
In the last MnSHIP update, MnDOT used performance measures
and targets to identify its future investment needs on the state
highway system. The current update advances this concept
by identifying various funding possibilities in each of the ten
investment categories listed on page 1 (e.g., Bridge Condition).
How are "Performance Levels" used in MnSHIP?
MnDOT has outlined four to five levels of potential funding for
each investment category. These varying investment amounts are
called "Performance Levels" in MnSHIP Each Performance Level
is unique in its investment level, strategy, performance outcomes,
and associated risks. Investing at a given Performance Level in
one category does not cause the Performance Levels in other
categories to adjust. For example, choosing a Performance Level
2 in Bridge Condition does not mean that Roadside Infrastructure
Condition must be set at Performance Level 2.
MnDOT has estimated the extent to which each Performance
Level would meet agency -wide performance targets through year
2032. This Performance Level analysis will help MnDOT and its
stakeholders gain a realistic understanding of how the different
investment approaches would affect Minnesota highways over
How will MnDOT incorporate risk in MnSHIP?
MnDOT has embraced a risk management approach in its
operations and capital decision - making to proactively identify,
clarify, and address risks and opportunities. This approach
is intended to protect and create value for all transportation
stakeholders across the state.
Consistent with this approach, MnDOT is using a risk -based
assessment in MnSHIP to both articulate and convey the risks
associated with each Performance Level option. The risks at
each level vary by their expected impact to the system and the
likelihood of their occurrence.
How will MnDOT use scenario planning for MnSHIP?
As shown in Step 2 of the plan development process (page 4),
MnDOT has used both performance measures and risk to define
a potential range of investment for each category. This step
allows MnDOT and the public to better understand the tradeoffs
associated with different Performance Levels.
Step 3 of the MnSHIP update involves evaluating investment
approaches that use different combinations of Performance
Levels from each investment category. Each approach represents
a potential way to balance risk and performance outcomes given
legislative requirements and revenue constraints. For more
information, see the Scenario Planning folio.
Ultimately, seeking feedback on the likely outcomes associated
with various investment approaches will help MnDOT to establish
Approach A Approach C
the most relevant investment direction
and plan.
In Step 3 of WHY MnDOT will produce
different combinations of Performance Levels
from each investment category to solicit
feedback from stakeholders. Approaches A,
Approach Its 8, and C are example investment approaches.
Colors correspond to the five key groups of
(Current) highway projects:
• r rnagement
• Traveler Safety
• Critical Connections
• Regional + Community Improvement
Priorities
• Project Support
The figure below illustrates the performance -based and risk -based planning process that the 2013 -2032 MnSHIP update is using.
Estimate future I I Identify performance
revenue outcomes and risks based on
various investment levels
INVESTMENT CATEGORY LEVELS + OUTCOMES
Investment Level
Greater SS$
Moderate S$
E
d
Risk + Performance Outcomes
Mitigates most risk, achieves higher performance
Accepts some risk, achieves moderate performance I
Accepts greater risk, achieves lower performance
_ 7 % f- -,
41=0 i 4W
Asset Traveler Critical Regional+ Project
Management Safety Connections Community Support*
(AM) ITS) ICC) Improvement (PS)
Priorities
(RC)
*A fixed percentage that is allocated towards delivering projects.
Group individual
performance levels into
alternative investment
approaches and solicit
public feedback
Develop fiscally -
constrained plan and
plan projects based
on scenario planning
results
Identify investment
priorities if more or less
funding is available
EXAMPLE INVESTMENT APPROACHES
Approach A
Approach B
Approach C
RCS
CC
AM - Moderate Investment
AM - Moderate Investment
AM - Lower Investment
TS - Moderate Investment
TS - Moderate Investment
TS - Moderate Investment
CC - Lower Investment
CC - Moderate Investment
CC - Higher Investment
RC - Lower Investment
RC - Moderate Investment
RC - Moderate Investment
PS - Fixed
PS - Fixed
PS - Fixed
MnSHIP will be influenced by feedback from stakeholders throughout the state of Minnesota. Opportunities to participate include:
Webinars Meetings
- August 27, 2012 - MnSHIP Overview - October 2012 - Stakeholder engagement meetings will take place in
- September 10, 2012 - Investment Categories and Scenario Planning I each MnDOT District.
- September 24, 2012 - Investment Categories and Scenario Planning II - April 2013 - MnDOT will hold a public hearing on the draft plan.
- March 2013 - Briefing on draft plan
Look for these additional folios!
Investment Category Folios
• Pavement Condition
• Bridge Condition
• Roadside Infrastructure Condition
• Traveler Safety
• Twin Cities Mobility
• Interregional Corridor Mobility
• Bicycle Infrastructure
• Accessible Pedestrian Infrastructure
• Regional + Community Improvement Priorities
• Project Support
Scenario Planning
• MnSHIP Investment Approaches
For more information, contact:
Ryan Wilson, PE., AICP
Project Manager, 20 -year State Highway Investment Plan
Office of Capital Programs & Performance Measures
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 440
St. Paul, MN 55155 -1899
651.366.3537
ryan.wilson@state.mn.us
OFTVt
www dot.state.mn. us/ planning /statehighwayinvestmentplan/
®o r.
UOC
A Coltaborative Vision
for Transportation
20 -Year
State Highway
Investment Plan
MnSHIP's total revenue will be distributed among ten investment categories. MnSHIP is a fiscally constrained plan, and must balance the
needs and risks of each category against those of the others. Each investment category has its own folio describinq the trade -offs of different
investment levels. Please see page 8 for a list of investment folios.
What is the State Highway Investment Plan?
MnDOT is developing its 20 -Year State Highway Investment Plan
2013 -2032 (MnSHIP). The purpose of the plan is to provide a
fiscally constrained investment direction, linking the policies and
strategies laid out in the Statewide Multimodal Transportation
Plan to capital improvements on the state highway system. The
MnSHIP update process uses a risk and performance -based
20 -year framework to guide future capital improvements on
Minnesota's 12,000 -mile state highway system.
What is scenario planning?
Scenario planning allows people to look at a range of investment
approaches and understand the implications of each. MnDOT
has outlined four to five levels of potential funding for each
investment category, called Performance Levels (PL)s. Each PL is
unique in its investment level, strategy, performance outcomes,
and associated risks. Investment approaches illustrated in this
folio combine different PLs from each investment category.
What will the future investment direction look like?
MnDOT has developed, Approach A Approach C
three approaches that
demonstrate fairly
diverse possibilities
of how available
funding could be
divided between the
Approach B
MnDDT aims to understand public tolerances of and
desires for shifting from Approach 8 towards A or C.
Investment categories. The intent of showing different investment
approaches is to illustrate the range of possibilities, or bookends,
for forming the basis of the future investment direction. In the
end, it is unlikely that any of the three approaches will be the
actual investment direction - rather, it is assumed that feedback
will be used to refine existing priorities in favor of elements
illustrated in Approach A or C. The three investment approaches
illustrated in this folio are:
• Approach A - Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure
(roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) on the entire system.
• Approach B - The current investment direction illustrates how
MnDOT currently invests, based on the most recently approved
statewide investment direction.
• Approach C - Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on
interstates and increasing investment in mobility, local priorities
and non - motorized transportation options.
The following three sets of two -page spreads illustrate each
approach. The left side of each spread contains highlights of
the approach and a hypothetical scenario describing a drive
from Winona to Bemidji. On the right, strengths and drawbacks
are highlighted, and a table compares this approach to current
funding levels and lists major outcomes of the approach.
What are major assumptions when choosing an approach?
It is important to keep in mind the following items when thinking
about the trade -offs associated with the three approaches:
• Each approach assumes constant revenue (fiscally constrained);
• Each approach assumes the same system size;
• If you want to spend more money in one category, you must
spend less on another; and
• There is no right or wrong answer - each option requires difficult
trade -offs across the entire system.
Approaches A + C
Relative change from Approach B - 26 %4 +2s.
-251% +36%
Traveler Safety
$860 M
-38' _ +139%
Critical
Connections
-•
$1.3 B
! +17%
Regional + Community
r8�
,,
Improvement Priorities
S1.5 B
Approaches A + C invest more or less in each investment category,
as compared with current investment (Approach 8).
Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across the entire system,- reduce investment
in mobility, non - motorized transportation options, and local priorities.
Highlights
Some highlights of what this funding approach could mean along Minnesota's state highway system in the next 20 years:
Existing roads Good ride quality on most state highways, though lower than today on all non-
interstates.
Existing bridges Less than 10% of bridges in poor condition. Many bridges repaired at optimal point in
life- cycle. Few bridge closures.
Roadside System upgrades are applied efficiently and approach alignment with life cycle costs.
Infrastructure
Safety Decline in annual fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways continues, but
slows compared to current levels.
Interregional Corridor No additional capacity on connections between Greater Minnesota regional centers.
mobility Travel times remain similar to today on all but a few roads.
Twin Cities mobility Approximately 1+ spot mobility improvements addressed each year. One new MnPASS
Lane completed.
Bicycle Infrastructure Shoulders are generally in good condition, allowing for a smooth bicycle ride on most
state highways.
Accessible Pedestrian Few pedestrian safety or access improvements implemented that are not related to
Infrastructure complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Regional + Community MnDOT addresses regional concerns and collaboration opportunities primarily through
Improvement Priorities the priority and timing of bridge and pavement projects.
What might Approach A look like 20 years into the tuture r
You are making the seven -hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned
route will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. Throughout your drive, you
notice that over half of the roads that you will travel on have good pavement conditions, regardless of whether they are interstates or state
highways. This makes for a smooth, comfortable drive. The route to Bemidji from Winona remains the same in 2032 as you remember it from 2012,
but the drive through the Twin Cities takes longer due to persistent congestion from the US 52 / 1 -94 interchange all the way to St. Cloud. A bit north
of Brainerd, you realize that increased traffic volumes makes passing very difficult on the two -lane sections of MN 371.
Upon reaching your destination, you and your friends immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your
ride begins pleasantly on a highway with broad and well maintained shoulders, but there is no signage to indicate that you are on a bike
trail and you have to pay close attention to where you are to make sure you don't miss the trail's departure point on the far side of the road. When
you cross the highway, you feel exposed and unsafe. Later, when the trail again meets up and runs on a low- volume state highway, you are
disappointed to find that there is a gravel shoulder. As a result, you ride in the highway travel lane where the road is smooth but there is less of a
buffer between you and passing traffic.
Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across the entire system; reduce investment
in mobility, non - motorized transportation options, and local priorities.
Biggest Strengths
• Pavement, bridge and roadside
infrastructure condition approaches
a state of good repair
• The vast majority of roadways are
smooth and bridge condition meets
national performance targets
Biggest Drawbacks
• Little to no added capacity across
all modes
• Limited responsiveness to local
concerns
INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT
cc
F >r
In orc. Prim 7
Acrassible
Pedestrian 1 `..
B,cp.Ie 2te
Twin cm's
Mi>bdry 3 .—
Rity
Inh
Cu
trill nn
86 °0 -36% -25% 2}',c +23r,/'o RC: Regional + Community Improvement Priorities
INVESTMENT APPROACH OUTCOMES
Group
Investment Planned
. of or
t l 1
approach impacts
t 3
2017-
2032
1 3
inv. current
1
Pavement $6,570 M
46% T
2
Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor.
Condition
Non- interstate principal arterials: 60% (3,470 miles) Good, 11 % (630 miles) Poor.
Non - principal arterials: 61% (4,100 miles) Good, 17% (1,140 miles) Poor.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds met for all
a
roads.
Bridge $3,050 M
Condition
21 % _
3
Principal arterials: 83% (1,278 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 8% (100 bridges) Poor
E
Non - principal arterials: 84% (1,024 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 8% (114 bridges)
>a
M
Poor
Roadside $1,470 M
10% T
2
All very poor ( #4) culverts addressed. Visibility standards met on most signs and
Infrastructure
markings. Rest areas maintained. System upgrades approach alignment with life
a
Condition
cycle costs. Guardrail, attenuator, + fence systems upgraded to new standards
during repairs.
Traveler Safety (TS) $640 M
4% �,
1
Total fatalities + serious injuries likely to continue decade -long decline, but at a
slower rate. System -wide, strategic proactive strategies implemented at 66%
of current rate. No investment in standalone projects to address sustained crash
locations.
Interregional
SO M
0% _
0
Minimal mobility investments. Most corridors maintain performance; mobility on
Corridor
4 corridors declines. Isolated segment and recreational peak mobility concerns
U
Mobility
continue to occur.
`—'
Twin Cities
$400 M 1
3%
0
Improve 1+ spot mobility issue per year. Congestion likely increases + reliability
o
Mobility
decreases system -wide. One managed lane corridor.
Bicycle
$250 M
2% _
1
Current bicycle network maintained due to pavement and bridge investment. Most
Infrastructure
replaced /reconstructed bridges accommodate bicyclists where appropriate.
Accessible
$180 M
1% =
1
Investment made through pavement + bridge projects. Few non -ADA pedestrian
-
Pedestrian
safety or access improvements undertaken. Accessible Pedestrian Signals installed
C-)
Infrastructure
at over half of the signalized intersections in the system.
Regional + Community
$210 M
1% �,
0
Inability to address economic competitiveness and quality of life beyond those
Improvement
related to system performance targets. No projects selected through statewide
Priorities (RC)
solicitation process.
*. PL =Performance Level. See Investment folios for specific information on each PL funding and outcomes. PLs are independent across investment categories.
Focus on bridges and safety; maintain current investment in mobility, non - motorized transportation options, and local priorities;
accept significant decline in pavement condition on low- volume roads.
Highlights
Some highlights of what this funding approach could mean along Minnesota's state highway system in the next 20 years:
Existing roads Good ride quality on a majority of high - volume roads with declining ride quality on all
non - interstate roads.
Existing bridges Less than 10% of bridges in poor condition. Many bridges repaired at optimal point in
life- cycle. Few bridge closures.
Roadside Deteriorating culverts may fail and result in frequent/severe flooding. Sign visibility is
Infrastructure reduced. Several rest areas close. Guardrail systems repaired but not upgraded.
Safety Fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways continue to decline on an annual
basis.
Interregional Corridor Limited improvements to flow, safety, and mobility on two -lane highways throughout
Mobility - the state. Travel times remain similar to today on all but a few roads.
Twin Cities Mobility Approximately 2+ spot mobility improvements addressed each year. Two new MnPASS
Lanes completed.
Bicycle Infrastructure Shoulders are generally in good condition, allowing for a smooth bicycle ride on most
state highways.
Accessible Pedestrian Few pedestrian safety or access improvements implemented that are not related to
Infrastructure complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Regional + Community Engage stakeholders in collaborative efforts to identify and prioritize investment
Improvement Priorities opportunities on state highways. Several projects funded per year that promote local
objectives relating to economic competitiveness and quality of life.
What might Approach B look like 20 years into the future?
You are making the seven -hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned
route will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. You notice that the pavement
conditions on the interstates and major roads that comprise most of your journey are much better than the low volume roads on
which you start and end your trip. The route to Bemidji from Winona is much as you remember it in 2012, although congestion has gotten worse
between the Twin Cities and St Cloud. A bit north of Brainerd, you notice that traffic volumes are higher on MN 371, but fortunately there are
frequent passing lanes and bypass lanes to allow you to navigate slower moving vehicles.
Upon reaching your destination, you and your friend immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your
ride begins on a highway and you are disappointed to find that there are cracks and depressions in the shoulders forcing you to keep your eyes
on the pavement. You are glad when the trail crosses the highway to depart the right -of -way, but the crossing is unprotected, causing you to
feel exposed and unsafe. Later, when the trail again meets up and runs on a state highway, you are disappointed to find that there is a gap in the
trail where the shoulder narrows dramatically- at some points, you are forced to ride on the highway itself.
e
Focus on bridges and safety; maintain current investment in mobility, non - motorized transportation options, and local priorities;
accept significant decline in pavement condition on low- volume roads.
Biggest Strength
*Ability to address highest
priority needs across all
investment categories
Biggest Drawback
• Limited ability to respond to
growing infrastructure and
evolving multimodal needs
INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT
AM TS CC RC P:
00110 0% 0% 0% n� RC: Regional + Community Improvement Priorities
INVESTMENT APPROACH OUTCOMES
Project
Support 11 °,
Access1,da
Pe&,trian 1
\ Regional Community
Improvement Priorities
10%
Bicycle 2%
Twin Cities Mobility
6%
Tf(1':BiP,I
3;
Br,4lr1e condo (t ,n
Group
of
T,�or Afprox Investment direction impacts
ee ry invest.
2017- Jiinv.
total
= to
current
t
Pavement $4,690 M
Condition
33%
t ,
__ 1 Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor.
Non- interstate principal arterials: 65% (3,750 miles) Good, 13% (770 miles) Poor.
Non - principal arterials: 8% (560 miles) Good, 42% (2,900 miles) Poor.
a
Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds not met
on non - principal arterials.
E
Bridge $3,320 M
Condition
23%
__
3
Principal arterials: 83% (1,278 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 8% (100 bridges) Poor
Non - principal arterials: 84% (1,024 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 8% (114 bridges)
Poor
(7
Roadside $990 M
Infrastructure
7%
_
—
1
Growing umber of unaddressed very
g ry poor ( #4) culverts. Some signs and
W
Condition
pavement markings fall below visibility standards. One -third of rest areas are
closed. Guardrail systems repaired but not updated to new systems.
Traveler Safety (TS) $860 M
6%
=
2
Total fatalities + serious injuries are likely to continue decade -long decline.
System -wide, strategic proactive strategies implemented at current rate. Several
sustained crash locations addressed.
Interregional
Corridor
$0 M
0%
_
0
Minimal mobility investments. Most corridors maintain performance- mobility on
Mobility
4 corridors declines. Isolated segment and recreational peak mobility concerns
continue to occur.
Twin Cities
Mobility
$900 M
6%
=
1
Address 2+ spot mobility issues per year. Congestion likely increases + reliability
decreases system -wide. Two managed lane corridors. Completion of MN 610 to
0
1 -94.
Bicycle
Infrastructure
$250 M
2%
1
Current bicycle network maintained due to pavement and bridge investment. Most
U
replaced /reconstructed bridges accommodate bicyclists where appropriate.
CC
Y
Accessible
Pedestrian
$180 M
1 %
__
1
Investment made through pavement + bridge projects. Few non -ADA pedestrian
cv
Infrastructure
safety or access improvements undertaken. Accessible Pedestrian Signals
installed at over half of the signalized intersections in the system.
Regional + Community
Improvement Priorities (RC)
$1,540 M
10%
_
2
Ability to capitalize on partnership opportunities. Economic competitiveness
and quality of life addressed through partnerships, +design add -ons. Several
small- and large -scale improvements per year address needs not associated with
performance targets.
Project Support
$1,580 M
11%
_
n/a
A fixed percentage allocated towards delivering projects that includes right -of-
way, consultant services, supplemental agreements, and construction incentives.
H.:
*:PL =Performance Level. See Investment Folios for specific information on each PL funding and outcomes. PLs are independent across investment categories.
Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates; increase investment in mobility, local priorities and non - motorized
transportation options; accept significant deterioration in the condition of infrastructure on non - interstate highways.
Highlights
Some highlights of what this funding approach could mean along Minnesota's state highway system in the next 20 years:
Existing roads Good ride quality on interstates, but pavement condition on the rest of the system
declines significantly.
Existing bridges Less than 15% of bridges in poor condition. Few bridges repaired at optimal point in
life- cycle. Weight restrictions on compromised bridges restrict freight movement.
Roadside Deteriorating culverts may fail and result in frequent /severe flooding. Sign visibility is
Infrastructure reduced. Several rest areas close. Guardrail systems repaired but not upgraded.
Safety Fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways likely to continue decline on
annual basis.
Interregional Corridor MnDOT makes improvements that improve traffic flow, safety and mobility on the
Mobility interregional corridors with the most predicted delay.
Twin Cities Mobility Approximately 5+ spot mobility improvements addressed. Two - three new/
reconstructed interchanges. Four new MnPASS Lanes completed.
Bicycle Infrastructure Targeted expansion to the state's bicycle network, including improvements on many
bridges.
Accessible Pedestrian Targeted expansion of pedestrian network. Investment complies with the Americans
Infrastructure with Disabilities Act on all signalized intersections and for all curb ramps in system.
Regional + Community MnDOT advances economic competitiveness and quality of life considerations through
Improvement Priorities partnerships, design add -ons, and several small- and large- scale projects per year that
address needs not associated with statewide performance targets.
What might Approach C look like 20 years into the future?
You are making the seven -hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned route
will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. You immediately notice that, while
the interstates are in good condition, other roads are not; the roughness of TH 52 (a non - interstate route) has patches of poor pavement that
makes driving the speed limit uncomfortable and puts significant wear and tear on your car. Although traffic is slow through the heart of the metro,
new lanes and some additional interchanges on 1 -94 and TH 10 allow for smooth traffic flow heading into and leaving St. Cloud.
Upon reaching your destination, you and your friend immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your
ride begins on a highway, and although the road itself shows signs of deterioration, the shoulder is wide, well maintained, and painted to
indicate a bike path. Abundant signage alerts you to where you are along the trail. You are pleased to find that the trail's highway crossing
is protected by flashing lights and yellow markings that alert traffic to the presence of bicyclists. You also notice that gaps in the trail have
been filled, so that no part of your ride is in the highway travel lane.
Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates; increase investment in mobility, local priorities and non- motorized
transportation options; accept significant deterioration in the condition of infrastructure on non - interstate highways.
Biggest Strengths Biggest Drawbacks
• Improved safety • Significant decline in the Project
condition of most roadways sii`t
Promotes mode choice
• Increased travel times on more
Adds capacity in priority ;,I
locations than half of the highway system
INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT
Two Cities
CC Mobility
12%
RC: Regional +Community Improvement Priorities
+17% +36%
INVESTMENT APPROACH OUTCOMES
l,ulltl:t l..f. t
�r
hl... n
Road'de
Infrastructure
Group
Investment Planned % of t,,�or
Category
A prox
Investment approach impacts
2017- inv. current
2032 invest.
Pavement $3,370 M 24% y
Condition
0
Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor.
Non- interstate principal arterials: 58% (3,320 miles) Good, 20% (1,150 miles) Poor.
Non - principal arterials: 2% (130 miles) Good, 56% (3,790 miles) Poor.
a
Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds not met
on Non - interstate principal arterials or non - principal arterials.
E
Bridge $2,500 M
Condition
17%
�,
2
Principal arterials: 78% (1,182 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 12% (182 bridges) Poor
o,
Non- principal arterials: 79% (952 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 14% (177 bridges)
co
Poor
Roadside $750 M
Infrastructure
5%
__
1
Growing number of unaddressed very poor (#4) culverts. Some signs and pavement
a
Condition
markings fall below visibility standards. One -third of rest areas are closed.
Guardrail systems repaired but not updated to new systems.
Traveler Safety (TS) $1,170 M
8%
T
3
Total fatalities /serious injuries likely to continue decade -long decline. Possible
reduction in non - motorized crashes. System -wide, strategic proactive strategies
implemented at 133% of current rate. Many sustained crash locations addressed.
Interregional
Corridor
$800 M
6%
T
2
Improved flow and reliability on 4 high- impact corridors, impacts 60% of IRC delay.
Mobility
Nearly all corridors maintain performance. Isolated segment and recreational peak
mobility concerns continue to occur.
Twin Cities
Mobility
$1,780 M
12%
.�.
2
Address 5+ spot mobility issues per year. System -wide congestion likely increases
+ reliability decreases. Four managed lane corridors (1- 35E,1- 94,1- 35W /MN 36).
Completion of MN 610 to 1 -94.
=
III-
Bicycle
Infrastructure
$300 M
2%
T
2
Standalone bikeway projects are undertaken, mainly low -cost, high benefit
projects (bike lanes, sharrows, route signage, etc.), some bridges, tunnels +
0
separated paths.
CE
Accessible
Pedestrian
$290 M
2%
T
2
Complies with ADA on all signalized intersections (1,200) and for all curb
C5
Infrastructure
ramps (20,000) in system. Standalone pedestrian projects are undertaken, incl.
crosswalks, sidewalks, curb extensions, refuges, + complete streets elements.
Regional + Community
Improvement Priorities
$1,800 M
13%
T
3
Strong ability to capitalize on partnership opportunities. Economic competitiveness
(RC)
+ quality of life addressed via partnerships, + design add -ons. Several small and
large -scale improvements /yr address needs not associated w /performance targets
, 'V y I,JVV IVI I I ,° nra n/a A rued percentage allocated towards delivering projects that includes right -of-
way, consultant services, supplemental agreements, and construction incentives.
*.'PL = Performance Level. See Investment Folios for specific information on each PL funding and outcomes. PLs are independent across investment categories.
There are a number of ways to stay involved and help shape the
future investment direction for the state highway system:
• Come to the District Stakeholder Engagement Meetings
held throughout October, 2012. See website for details.
• Send us comments on our website or at the email below.
• Look for the MnSHIP Interactive Scenario Tool on the
MnSHIP website to submit your opinions on the investment
approaches electronically
Whatever method you think is best, we hope to hear from you!
Look for these additional folios!
Overview + Background • Interregional Corridor Mobility
• What is MnSHIP? • Twin Cities Mobility
Investment Category Folios
• Pavement Condition
• Bridge Condition
• Roadside Infrastructure
Condition
• Traveler Safety
• Bicycle Infrastructure
• Accessible Pedestrian
Infrastructure
• Regional + Community
Improvement Priorities
• Project Support
i St E
.bloc der 7
1 .bloc
echnical ..... MnSHIP
t,.
. I Investment Direction
E F-- Feedback
from the
Stakeholder and public t GoVefnor
input is one of several i
factors that will influence Re r� drenients
the investment direction i ItAP •21Y
set in MnSHIP'
For more information, contact:
Ryan Wilson, RE., AICP
Project Manager, 20 -Year State Highway Investment Plan
Office of Capital Programs & Performance Measures
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 440
St. Paul, MN 55155 -1899
651.366.3537
ryan.wilson @state.mn.us
DO��NNESpp9y0
VCR'it
OF Tf,
www. dot, state. mn. us/ planning /statehlghwayinvestmentplan/
Focus on meeting infrastructure needs
investment in
Investment Summary
Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure
Focus on bridges and safety; maintain
(roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across
current investment in mobility, non-
on interstates; increase
the entire system; reduce investment in mobility,
motorized transportation options, and
mobility, local priorities and non - motorized
non - motorized transportation options, and local
local priorities; accept significant decline
transportation options; accept significant
priorities
in pavement condition on low- volume
deterioration in the condition of infrastructure
roads
on non - interstate highways
Biggest Strengths
Pavement, bridge and roadside infrastructure
Ability to address highest priority needs
investment
Improved safety; promotes mode choice and
adds capacity in priority locations
condition approaches a state of good repair: the
across all categories
vast majority of roadways are smooth and bridge
condition meets national performance targets
Biggest Drawback
Little to no added capacity across all modes;
limited responsiveness to local concerns
Limited ability to respond to growing
infrastructure and evolving multimodal
Significant decline in the condition of most
roadways; increased travel times on more
needs
than half of the highway system
2% principal arterial interstate
2% principal arterial interstate
2% principal arterial interstate
—
11 % other principal arterials
13% other principal arterials
20% other principal arterials
17% non - principal arterials
43% non - principal arterials
56% non - principal arterials
8% principal arterials
8% principal arterials
12% principal arterials
8% non - principal arterials
8% non - principal arterials
14% non - principal arterials
Needs addressed throughout the state, overall
Address strategically, manage decline
Address strategically, manage decline
condition improves
Safety (TS)
Decline in fatalities likely to continue to decline
Decline in fatalities likely to continue
Decline in fatalities likely to continue
but at a slower rate
Minimal mobility investment
Minimal mobility investment
Added capacity improves flow on regional
connections wl greatest predicted delay
fYl Oft i I sty ( i
Twin Cities ivobiiiiy;('C)
Address l+ spot mobility issues per year; one
- new MnPASS lane
Address 2+ spot mobility issues per
year; two new MnPASS lanes
Address 5+ spot mobility issues per year;
construct 2 -3 interchanges; 4 new MnPASS.-=
lanes .
Bicycle Infrastructure (BI)
Full maintenance of existing bike amenities, but
Full maintenance of existing bike
Targeted expansion of the state's bicycle
- —
no additional facilities
amenities, but no additional facilities
network
Accessible Pedestrian
Most pedestrian improvements are ADA- related
I Most pedestrian improvements are
ADA- related
Targeted expansion of ped. network, both
ADA and non -ADA pedestrian improvements.
(AP)
Regional + Community
Local concerns primarily addressed through
priority and timing of bridge and pavement
Local concerns addressed through
partnerships, design add -ons, and a few
Local concerns addressed through '-
partnerships, design add -ons; and several
Priorities (RC)
projects
projects per year addressing quality of
projects per year addressing quality of life
life and economic competitiveness
and economic competitiveness
How will I Diet a chance to voice my opinion?
There are a number of ways to stay involved and help shape the
future investment direction for the state highway system:
• Come to the District Stakeholder Engagement Meetings
held throughout October, 2012. See website for details.
• Send us comments on our website or at the email below.
• Look for the MnSHIP Interactive Scenario Tool on the
MnSHIP website to submit your opinions on the investment
approaches electronically
Whatever method you think is best, we hope to hear from you!
Look for these additional folios!
Overview + Background • Interregional Corridor Mobility
• What is MnSHIP? • Twin Cities Mobility
Investment Category Folios
• Pavement Condition
• Bridge Condition
• Roadside Infrastructure
Condition
• Traveler Safety
• Bicycle Infrastructure
• Accessible Pedestrian
Infrastructure
• Regional + Community
Improvement Priorities
• Project Support
i St E
.bloc der 7
1 .bloc
echnical ..... MnSHIP
t,.
. I Investment Direction
E F-- Feedback
from the
Stakeholder and public t GoVefnor
input is one of several i
factors that will influence Re r� drenients
the investment direction i ItAP •21Y
set in MnSHIP'
For more information, contact:
Ryan Wilson, RE., AICP
Project Manager, 20 -Year State Highway Investment Plan
Office of Capital Programs & Performance Measures
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 440
St. Paul, MN 55155 -1899
651.366.3537
ryan.wilson @state.mn.us
DO��NNESpp9y0
VCR'it
OF Tf,
www. dot, state. mn. us/ planning /statehlghwayinvestmentplan/
Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12
4. Update on Fallon Avenue Overpass.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In December of 2011 the City Council authorized staff from the City and WSB and Associates
to meet with various stakeholders for the proposed Second River Crossing and Fallon Avenue
Overpass projects for the purpose of reviewing the results of the two studies and to gather
public input for future consideration by the TAC and the Council.
The City Council authorized staff to meet with identified key stakeholders to review and gather
input on three approved design options (l, 3A and 5) for the preferred alignment of the Fallon
Avenue Overpass. Staff has since met with most of the key stakeholders, and the preliminary
results of the Fallon Avenue Overpass meetings will be discussed with the TAC, as will next.
steps.
B. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12
5. Update on Second River Crossinj4.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In December of 2011 the City Council authorized staff from the City and WSB and Associates
to meet with various stakeholders for the proposed Second River Crossing and Fallon Avenue
Overpass projects for the purpose of reviewing the results of the two studies and to gather
public input for future consideration by the TAC and the Council.
In June of 2012 staff from the City and WSB and Associates met with various representatives
from local and regional agencies that were determined to likely benefit from a second river
crossing in the Monticello Area. The feedback received at the meeting will be discussed with
the TAC, as will next steps.
B. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12
6. Update on West 7th Street Extension (Minnesota to Elm) Feasibility Report status
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On August 27th, 2012, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Feasibility Report for an
improvement project to extend West 7th Street from Minnesota Street to Elm Street. City staff
and WSB and Associates are currently preparing the report which addresses the location, scope,
estimated costs, available funding sources, preliminary project schedule, and determination as
to the necessity, feasibility and cost - effectiveness of the proposed improvements.
As was discussed at our previous meeting, the proposed improvements include a new 44 -foot
wide urban road approximately'/ mile in length with a new bituminous pathway running along
the north side of 7t11 Street, similar to the pathway design along East 7th Street. In addition,
LED street lighting is currently being proposed along the new roadway segment mirroring the
design of the LED street lights along East 7th Street between Cedar Street and the Union
Crossing development.
These improvements are currently identified in the City's Transportation Plan and are included
in the City's 5 -year CIP as a proposed improvement project for 2013 with an estimated cost of
$1,250,000.
Extending West 7th Street between Minnesota and Elm Streets will complete a vital link in our
local transportation system and will provide a more direct connection between East CR 39 and
West /East 7th Streets in lieu of West 6th Street. The extension of West 7th Street will also
provide an alternate route to Chelsea Road between CR 39 and TH 25, and will complete the
frontage road "system" north of I -94, which the FHWA will require before allowing another
interchange to be constructed on 1 -94 west of TH 25.
Extending West 7th Street between Minnesota and Elm Streets will also allow the adjacent
undeveloped properties to be more easily marketed and developed, thereby providing special
benefit to these properties which will allow the City to apply special assessments for funding a
portion of the improvements.
State -Aid funds can be used to pay for a portion of the improvements, and the use of excess
TIF funds may also be used to help fund a portion of the improvements.
The Feasibility Report should be complete and ready for presentation to the City Council in
January of 2013, at which time Council will be asked to accept the report and authorize staff to
prepare Plans and Specifications.
B. SUPPORTING DATA:
Figure 1 — Alignment Option 1
Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12
7. Consideration of revising meeting dates.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
TAC members are requested to consider revising their regularly scheduled meeting dates to
alleviate a scheduling conflict with the Parks Commission as they also meet regularly on the
fourth Thursday every other month, although their meetings start at 8 am. This results in
conflicts when trying to scheduling meeting rooms so the TAC is being asked to reconsider
revising their meeting dates to either the second or third Thursday of the month. No other
Board, Committee or Commission meets in the morning of these dates so no conflict should
exist if one of these dates is chosen.
If the TAC is not able to reach an agreement on a revised meeting date the Parks Commission
will be asked to consider revising their meeting date instead. This request is being prompted by
the need to update and publish a new meeting schedule for 2013.
B. SUPPORTING DATA:
None